Talking Points & Climate Change

"While science and philosophy are about determining the nature of reality, politics is about creating perceptions alleged to be reality. This is one of many reasons why it is wiser to accept claims supported by science and reason over claims "supported" by ideology and interest."

"Ideally, the facts of climate change would be left to science and sorting out how to address it via policy would fall, in part, to the politicians using the facts. Unfortunately, politicians and other non-scientists make claims about climate science, usually in the form of unsupported talking points."

"In the beginning of climate change denial, they simply asserted that there was no climate change and the scientists were wrong. It was alleged that scientists were motivated by ideology to lie. In contrast, those whose profits could be impacted if climate change were real were presented as trustworthy sources."

"One talking point is that scientists are exaggerating the impact of climate change and it will not be as bad as they claim. To be fair, this can be based on a reasonable concern about the accuracy of any prediction. In the case of a scientific prediction based on data and models, a reasonable inquiry would focus on the accuracy of the data and the quality of the models."

Science and philosophy aim to determine the nature of reality, while politics aims to create perceptions treated as reality. Climate change involves both scientific facts and political decisions about policy responses. Ideally, scientific evidence would guide policy, but non-scientists often make climate-science claims using unsupported talking points. Conservative messaging has shifted over time from denying climate change and accusing scientists of ideological lying, to emphasizing sources with potential profit interests. Later messaging conceded that climate change occurs but argued it is not human-caused, then argued it is human-caused but that nothing should be done. After a political return to power, denial and ignoring increased again. A common talking point claims scientists exaggerate impacts, which can be a legitimate concern only if prediction accuracy, data quality, and model quality are examined.

Read at A Philosopher's Blog